[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
Tom Hansen
thansen at moscow.com
Tue Jul 1 12:55:12 PDT 2014
It would NOT be forced upon people (the blood-and-bone type), but required of for-profit corporations.
Once a group of people (family or otherwise) decide to incorporate themselves into a for-profit venture, they acquire certain commitments and responsibilities (now there's a word I haven't seen associated with this thread) TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. Among these commitments and responsibilities is the obligation to provide sufficient health insurance to ensure their (the employees) health, both day-to-day and long term.
To expand on Saundra's comments . . .
Could you imagine being a sole-parent (with one or two children . . . thanks to a dead-beat, hit- and-run father of the children) in Idaho . . . hustling (waiting on) tables at a restaurant . . . for minimum wage (a job is a job when no other jobs are available) getting paid $4/hour (as the employer estimates that you make $1/hour in tips (which is deductible from your paycheck . . . Isn't Idaho wonderful?) . . . and now your employer tells you that (s)he will no longer cover contraception . . . because their (the employer's) accountant has introduced them to the benefits if religious freedom.
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's room at the top they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
- John Lennon
> On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Protecting the religious freedom of close-knit family-owned businesses who profess a particular faith, yeah.
>
> Maybe you could work on convincing me why forcing your employer to cover contraception is such a desirable thing that you would willingly force people who equate it with murder to do so.
>
> Paul
>
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Rosemary Huskey <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> So, the bottom line is to deny female employees health insurance coverage for contraception . . . while protecting the religious freedom of for-profit corporations?
>
> While you are attempting to create a witty comeback . . .
>
> I am going to check my mail at the campus post office. Cover me!
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 1, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I can't see into the hearts of the hobby lobby owners as well as you apparently can. I think there is quite a difference between having a mutual fund that is part of your retirement portfolio buying stock in a company that makes an item that they find morally objectionable and directly paying to allow their employees to purchase and use said item. It's also possible that they don't make the distinction between whether or not a fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall; they may think that life begins and fertilization and feel the same way about eggs that naturally fail to attach to the uterine wall as they do about natural miscarriages, i.e. they think it's a bad thing and they certainly don't condone trying to make it happen intentionally. But then, as I say, I have no idea what they are really thinking or really believe.
>>
>> When I weigh someone having to fork over money for their own contraceptives vs. someone who might legitimately believe that they should not be enabling what they consider murder, I have to fall on the side of Hobby Lobby and the other plaintiffs in this particular case despite the fact that I don't share their concerns about contraceptives nor do I share their religious beliefs. The affected employees can buy their own contraceptives, purchase a private plan that includes them or switch employers if they feel that strongly about it.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Rosemary Huskey <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
>> To: 'Paul Rumelhart' <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: 'vision 2020' <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 11:05 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> And, by what means can a court, or an employer distinguish between really believing vs fakey believing? For example, a closely held company invests in corporations that produce medication or devices that prevent conception. Let’s identify that company as Hobby Lobby. (Please read the link). Do you suppose that their recent law suit was related to actual moral objections? Did they suddenly starting giving a hoot about the issue two years ago? Or, do you think that their law suit might have political objectives? If past actions are any indication they have (by their own recently adopted standards) loosey goosey ethics. And, because the medical community (who actually know more about the medicine than the judges, the attorneys, and the Green Family) does not considered the medication or devices abortifacient, why were the opinion of experts ignored in favor of a conservative political agenda? In the meantime, since we can only guess at the intensity of a religious commitment – I call out the Green family as hypocritical political opportunists and the five justices as patriarchal jackasses.
>> Rose Huskey
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:14 AM
>> To: Rosemary Huskey; 'Gary Crabtree'
>> Cc: 'vision 2020'
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> By "legitimate" I mean they really believe it, as opposed to those that just say they do in order to get out of having to pay for something. I'm not sure how you test for it, though.
>>
>> I'm not a theologian, so I'll skip the second question. Is it pertinent?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> From: Rosemary Huskey <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
>> To: 'Paul Rumelhart' <godshatter at yahoo.com>; 'Gary Crabtree' <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
>> Cc: 'vision 2020' <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 9:53 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> Hey Paul,
>> Help me to understand what a “legitimate” religious belief means. Can one have an illegitimate religious belief? And, further, explain why/how one religious belief trumps another.
>> Rose
>>
>>
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:11 AM
>> To: Gary Crabtree
>> Cc: vision 2020
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> Yep, that seems to be how it's looked at. That's one of the reasons I'm such a pariah on this list, I think. From my perspective, both major parties are far on the statist side of the statist / individualist axis. I'm on the individualist side, which is why I'm wondering why someone can't just pay for their own contraceptives if their employer objects to having it on their company's health care plan for legitimate religious reasons.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> From: Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
>> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> Mr. Rumelhart please, from the statist perspective it's only a right if it can in some way be inflicted on someone else. Either by making others pay for it or by forcing the participation of those who would otherwise demure.
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> From: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>> To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>
>> Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates religious rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of flesh-and-blood people. HL is not about restricting the power of government and it's naive to think that's its objective. If the government were restricting birth control, as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that exercise of government power.
>>
>> Sunil
>> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
>> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in rulings. In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the government.
>> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
>> To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>> Great points, Rose, and I’m afraid I agree with your assessment. Thank you for pointing out the obvious even if it’s uncomfortable some.
>>
>> It’s long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of ethics federal judges must adhere to.
>>
>>
>> Saundra
>>
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Rosemary Huskey
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>>
>> Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that we trust and hold dear. In light of the Supreme Court decision supporting the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim to be at odds with their religious beliefs, I wondered if the court was persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations. Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that uphold the doctrine of patriarchy, i.e., do they attend churches that deny women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what? Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic.
>>
>> In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973 eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique privilege for male members. And, what could possibly more be patriarchal than controlling women’s reproductive choices?
>>
>> Rose Huskey
>>
>>
>>
>> ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>>
>> ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/ab30d64d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list